Also known as: insults
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
3 senses
A direct personal verbal attack likely to provoke an immediate violent response. Such language receives no First Amendment protection when it constitutes fighting words.
Grossly offensive speech or conduct inflicted by a public utility employee on a patron. The utility is subject to tort liability for such insults.
A direct personal verbal attack likely to provoke an immediate violent response. Such language receives no First Amendment protection when it constitutes fighting words.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Grossly offensive speech or conduct inflicted by a public utility employee on a patron. The utility is subject to tort liability for such insults.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Insulting or taunting speech uttered with purpose to harass another in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Insulting or taunting speech uttered with purpose to harass another in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Isabella Ingram shouted racial epithets at a passerby during a protest. City police arrested her under an ordinance that punished only insults based on race or religion. The court dismissed the charge because the ordinance singled out disfavored viewpoints within the fighting-words category.
Idris Ives, a white applicant, challenged a medical school's admissions program that considered race to remedy past discrimination. The court upheld the program because it did not demean or insult any racial group.
Direct personal insults that constitute fighting words receive no protection because they are likely to provoke immediate violence. Viewpoint-based restrictions within that category remain invalid even though the speech itself is unprotected.
Supporting sources
No. Common law treats insults and verbal taunts as legally insufficient provocation regardless of how enraging they may be. Only serious battery, adultery, or similar acts qualify as adequate provocation.
Supporting sources
Isabella Ingram boarded a city bus. The driver repeatedly shouted personal insults at her in front of other riders. The court held the transit authority liable for the gross insults inflicted by its employee within the scope of employment.
A common carrier or public utility faces liability to patrons for gross insults inflicted by its employees acting within the scope of employment. The rule protects users of public facilities from offensive conduct by those who serve them.
Supporting sources
Isaac Irving's home was raided at night by officers who forced him to stand naked while they ransacked his belongings. The court found that the calculated degradation and insult during the unlawful entry violated due process.
Isaiah Ishikawa was fired after his supervisor repeatedly insulted his work in front of clients. The court held that the insults did not create an independent tort claim outside the employment contract.
Ian Iverson broadcast a recorded phone conversation containing private remarks. The court held that the disclosure added the insult of publication to the original invasion of privacy.
Yes. A person commits a petty misdemeanor by insulting or taunting another in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response when done with purpose to harass.
Supporting sources
…invasive treatment may perpetuate human existence through a merger of body and machine that some might reasonably regard as an insult to life rather than as its continuation. But those same advances, and the reorganization of medical care accompanying the new science and technology, have also transformed the political and…